Peter Kirk wrote:
>> HH: Because I had the time and interest to pursue it adequately for my
>> purpose, which was to clarify that the man was unreliable.
> But since you had not researched the issue properly, and had not even
> properly examined the article from which you took the accusations of
> unreliability, you did not have proper grounds to claim that the man was
> unreliable.
HH: Yes, I did have proper grounds to claim that
he was unreliable. I gave several valid grounds on
which I based my assertion that he was unreliable.
One does not necessarily have to read everything a
person writes to know he is unreliable. And I read
more than I commented on here on the list, though
not the entire article of fifty pages. This is a
discussion group, not a university seminar or a
theological journal, so your demands of what I
must do before I can speak have no real
legitimacy. I am not obligated to do anything
except believe I know what I'm talking about.
Yours,
Harold Holmyard